COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick 

BADRI N. DAS 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 2656-96-4 PER CURIAM 

 MAY 13, 1997 

PUSHP L. DAS 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY 

Paul F. Sheridan, Judge 

 (Ted Kavrukov; Kavrukov, Mehrotra & DiJoseph, 

on briefs), for appellant. 

 (Edward Ellis Zetlin; Legal Services of 

Northern Virginia, on brief), for appellee. 

 Badri N. Das (husband) appeals the decision of the circuit 

court denying his motion to eliminate or reduce spousal support 

paid to Pushp L. Das (wife). Upon reviewing the record and 

briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without 

merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the 

trial court. Rule 5A:27. 

 The parties signed a settlement agreement which was 

incorporated into the final divorce decree. Pursuant to that 

agreement, at the time of the hearing, husband paid wife $600 in 

monthly spousal support. Prior to husband's retirement, wife 

received health insurance through husband's employment. The 

parties' agreement also provided that "[b]ased on retirement, 

relocation, or other similar circumstances, the parties reserve 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 2 

the right to request revision of spousal support under Rule 109." 

 Code § 20-109 provides that "upon petition of either party 

the court may increase, decrease or terminate spousal support and 

maintenance that may thereafter accrue . . . as the circumstances 

may make proper." "The moving party in a petition for 

modification of support is required to prove both a material 

change in circumstances and that this change warrants a 

modification of support." Schoenwetter v. Schoenwetter, 8 Va. 

App. 601, 605, 383 S.E.2d 28, 30 (1989). 

 Husband testified that since the entry of the divorce, he 

had retired and remarried. He continued to need domestic help at 

the cost of $100 per month because of his peptic ulcer. His 

monthly retirement income was $1,998. 

 Wife earned $850 per month as a child care provider, but her 

employment required her to relocate. Wife had monthly rental 

income of $1,250 but related expenses of $1,413. Wife also had 

heart disease requiring daily medication and, since husband's 

retirement, paid $145 per month for health insurance. After 

reaching age sixty-two, wife began to draw $406 in monthly Social 

Security, which was her only retirement income. Wife's monthly 

income from work, rental property and Social Security totaled 

$2,506. 

 The trial court found that husband was not required to 

provide health insurance coverage for wife after his retirement. 

 The court denied husband's motion to reduce or eliminate spousal 
 3 

support. Credible evidence in the record supports this 

conclusion. Both husband and wife were over sixty years old, but 

while husband was retired, wife was required to continue her 

employment without which her income would have fallen to less 

than $1,700. Wife had no retirement benefits other than Social 

Security, although she received a one-time lump sum payment of 

approximately $13,500 prior to the parties' divorce. The income 

wife earned from the rental property did not exceed her mortgage 

expenses. Wife also was now responsible for monthly health 

insurance premiums of $145. 

 "When a trial court hears evidence ore tenus, its findings 

are entitled to the weight of a jury verdict, and will not be 

disturbed on appeal unless plainly wrong or without evidence to 

support them." Floyd v. Floyd, 1 Va. App. 42, 45, 333 S.E.2d 

364, 366 (1985). The trial court's findings are neither plainly 

wrong nor unsupported by evidence. Accordingly, the decision of 

the circuit court is summarily affirmed. 

 Affirmed.